A. Peace talk from the American churches

The 40 years since World War II have changed a lot of things. The peace churches are no longer looked at as irrelevant, insignificant, or even heretical. The major Protestant denominations today recognize the validity of the absolute pacifist position. They acknowledge the authenticity of conscientious objection, and pledge their resources to support Conscientious Objectors (COs). Most mainline churches have strong statements on the necessity of action for peace and disarmament.

On my study shelf are recent major statements on war and peace issues from Lutherans, Presbyterians, United Methodists, the United Church of Christ, the Disciples of Christ and of course the significant document, "The Challenge of Peace," from the American Roman Catholic bishops. In that much-discussed pastoral letter, the gospel witness of nonviolence is recognized as a faithful option for Catholics, alongside the traditional just war position.

It appears that a new day has dawned. How did it happen? And what part did the peace churches play in bringing about this change? Of course it is difficult to assess cause and effect in such a case, but our Quaker friend Daniel Smith has made the following observation:

Mennonite scholarship is the major source today of creative non-violent theology and Biblical analysis, read far more widely than among the Mennonite faithful themselves. This has not come without some painful introspection on the part of Mennonites themselves as they have moved from the farmlands to the world's capitals to express their growing activism in giving witness to Christian nonviolence and social justice.¹⁹

In addition to this scholarly contribution on the part of a few, many Mennonites have become more active in interfaith dialogue on peace theology and peacemaking. We have joined with Baptist, Roman Catholic and Reformed groups in consultations and specific activities, particularly at the local level. There are growing opportunities for Mennonites to share their peace concerns with other Christians.

What does it all mean? Along with our rejoicing that just about everyone now seems to be talking about peace, there may be need for some caution before assuming that the historic divisions between the several traditions are all about to be resolved. A look at what is happening in several major denominations may illustrate the issues that still challenge us.

B. The United Church of Christ: "A just peace church"?

In June 1985 the Fifteenth General Synod of the United Church of Christ (UCC) passed a pronouncement "Affirming the United Church of Christ to be a Just Peace Church." This was the result of a process begun in 1981 when a resolution calling on the denomination to declare itself a "pacifist" church was amended to make it a call to become a "peace" church. Two years later this was changed to "peacemaking church," as the Peace Theology Development Team (appointed by the Office for Church in Society) worked on the theological and political bases and implications of becoming a peacemaking church. Their first draft was circulated widely in 1984 and 1985 led to the 1986 publication of A Just Peace Church, edited by Susan Thistlethwaite.²⁰

Beginning with a brief review of the classic war and peace positions in Christian history (pacifism, just war, and the crusade) as well as the distinctive denominational heritage, the 160-page book goes on to outline the current global context: ideological conflict, growing divisions of rich and poor, the nuclear threat, the inadequacy of deterrence doctrine.

Chapters 3 and 4 develop the biblical and theological foundations for "just peace," a theme rooted in the biblical concept of "shalom," and defined by the UCC as "the interrelation of friendship, justice, and common security from violence." This effort at a prophetic linking of justice and peace is related to the contemporary liberation agenda (A Just Peace Church: 39), with particular attention to economic injustice and covert structures of violence. In a beginning effort at constructing a peace theology, the doctrine of creation is grounded in covenantal "friendship" (52-54). Other doctrinal themes treated briefly are sin, Christ, the Spirit, the church, church and state, and hope.

Chapter five sets forth four bases for the "real security" of the state: adequate defense, general well-being, appropriate political structures, and justice. These are developed in relation to basic ethical norms derived from the shalom vision.

Chapter six, the longest of the book, calls the church to faithfulness in its own life, first by reaffirming basic biblical marks of the church and then offering programmatic suggestions for integrating peace and justice themes in the worship, education, and outreach of local congregations. The larger denominational and structural implications are treated in chapter seven. The book concludes with the texts of the synodical pronouncement and proposal for action, along with a guide for a six-session study of "Just Peace."

In many respects this is a remarkable document, representing a prophetic step forward by a mainline denomination. Although the "free church" roots of one strand of UCC (Congregational Christian) life are not explicitly noted, the approach to church/state strategy reveals an awareness of the problems with "cultural Protestantism" and thus is more compatible with sectarianAnabaptist perspectives than many such pronouncements. The theology, while admittedly sketchy, is solidly grounded and suggestively stated. There is a sustained effort to connect justice and peace concerns, taking into account the yearnings of oppressed groups as well as the nuclear fears of the more affluent class.

Unlike many contemporary peace statements, this book does not dwell on the threat of nuclear holocaust, but instead holds forth a consistent shalom vision that seeks for peace with justice for all peoples. The UCC writers respect classic pacifism, but do not adopt it. Instead they claim to have moved beyond the three historic paradigms in their proposal for a "just peace." They categorically opposed the institutions of war and nuclear deterrence and call for new understandings of common global security based on affirmation of human needs and rights.

C. The United Methodists: "In defense of creation"?

In April 1986 the United Methodist Council of Bishops voted to approve their pastoral letter on the nuclear issue, a three-page statement accompanied by the 80-page foundation document, published together with the title: In Defense of Creation: The Nuclear Crisis and a Just Peace. Central to the argument of the book is this assertion: "the nuclear crisis poses fundamental questions of faith that neither the pacifist nor the just-war traditions have adequately addressed" (In Defence of Creation: 13).

Like the UCC, the bishops begin with a review of biblical foundations for peacemaking and an examination of the classical ethical traditions (pacifism and just war). They then set forth a statement of guiding principles for a "theology for a just peace." The following chapters describe the challenge of nuclear weapons and offer an analysis of the arms race, surveying its impact both in American society and the global scene, in terms very critical of the present situation. The document goes on to propose policies for a just peace, based on an "ethic of reciprocity." The concluding chapter outlines the role of the church as peacemaker. It would not be unfair to characterize the document as a typical summation of mainline liberal thought on the topic.

The bishops gained immediate public attention with their categorical rejection of nuclear deterrence and their detailed critique of current U.S. policy. On a more theological level, they have been accused of setting forth a heretical theodicy because of the dramatic way in which they draw attention to the claim that "nuclear winter" represents a threat to "not only the whole human family but planet earth itself." The critics (among them, William Willimon, Paul Ramsey, Stanley Hauerwas, and the NAE-PFSS) call this "survivalism." They claim that the assumption that humanity has the power to destroy what God has created leads to an idolatry of creation and unworthy appeals to motives of fear and survival.²¹

The other issue inviting critical response is the bishops' claim togo beyond the traditional just war/pacifism distinction. Two outstanding Methodist scholars have challenged the bishops in a critical study that weighs three times the bishops' book. Paul Ramsey, longtime Princeton professor who died earlier this year, has been described as "America's foremost Christian ethicist." In his last work, now published, Speak Up For Just War or Pacifism, Ramsey exposes what he considers to be the serious theological flaws of In Defense of Creation. Ramsey has been known throughout his career as a stalwart defender of the classic just war position, but a major part of this critique draws extensively from the work of Mennonite John Howard Yoder. Ramsey has his own substantial disagreements with Yoder, of course, but he boldly uses Yoder's rigorous logic to castigate the bishops.

The epilogue to Ramsey's work is a pacifist challenge to the alleged sloppy thinking of the bishops, written by the prolific Stanley Hauerwas, formerly a colleague of John Howard Yoder's at Notre Dame, who repeatedly acknowledges his debts to Yoder. So we have the interesting phenomenon of two Methodist theologians, at odds with each other, but both deeply engaged with the thought of Mennonite scholar. And both approaches reflect the implicit recognition of the classic distinction noted near the beginning of this essay, the difference between the ethical logic of sect type and church type Christianity.

D. Looking toward 2000 with the Baptists

Although the influence of scholars such as Yoder is obviously important among those working at the ethics of war and peace in other denominations, we Mennonites have not been directly involved in these deliberations. But a more direct kind of interaction has begun between the peace churches and representatives of various Baptist groups.

From May 7 to 9, 1987, the Central Planning Committee of New Call to Peacemaking (Brethren, Friends, Mennonites) met with the Steering Committee of the Baptist Peace Fellowship of North America (BPFNA), at Granville, Ohio. This was a first-time-ever coming together, intended to explore our respective approaches to peacemaking. John Howard Yoder was invited to help the group reflect on the meaning of those elements of our history and theology that might help us build on a common "free church" and "baptist vision" heritage. Most of the two dozen or so participants had not met before, but it seemed there was an immediate sense of belonging together. We had to recognize, of course, that the Baptists were rather special people, a self-selected leadership group representing some 3,000 BPFNA members out of more than 25 million Baptists in North America.

Half way through the planned sessions, Archie Goldie, an executive for the Baptist World Alliance, took the group by surprise when he dared to share his dream that we should publicly proclaim the year 2000 a year of world peace. After some testing, probing and prayer, the group decided to push ahead and appointed a continuingcommittee to work on the idea.

That group, meeting in Pittsburgh on June 19 at the time of the American Baptist Convention, agreed provisionally on a proposal that Goldie took to the July meeting of the Baptist World Alliance. To the surprise of many, much of its substance was adopted as "Resolution 4," calling all Christians and other people of good will to recognize the year 2000 A.D. as a year of peace and to work and pray in the intervening years so that the world might enter the third millennium free from the threat of war.

At the November BPFNA steering committee meeting, several New Call persons again joined the process and worked on a more comprehensive statement that includes a brief theology of "shalom" and a call to redemptive nonviolence. The joint NCP-BPFNA document (at this writing still in process) concludes with a listing of covenant affirmations: prayer, simple lifestyle, ministry of reconciliation, work for global justice, etc. If these steps were taken seriously by even a minority of Baptists and peace church folk (not to mention the other Christians also addressed), they would surely bring about radical changes in the churches and in the world.

E. What kind of church can bring peace?

But are the churches ready to receive such a message? The sampling of projects we have reviewed here, from the 1948 WCC declaration that "war is contrary to the will of God," to the 1988 JPIC, from the NAE Guidelines to the UCC's Just Peace Church, all remind us that there is no shortage of urgent and occasionally profound language calling the church to peace. But are the churches ready to consider the radical changes that these pronouncements are in actuality demanding?

As suggested in section IB of this essay, a fundamental issue in the churches' stance on war and peace is described by the classic church/sect distinction. In basic terms, the question becomes one of choosing between two loyalties: the nation or the universal Christian community.

To illustrate: Susan Thistlethwaite, editor of the UCC "just peace church" statement, in a recent essay surveys a number of denominational peace pronouncements (from the Disciples, Presbyterians, and Lutherans, as well as the ones mentioned here). She then raises the basic problem of a church, a denomination, that dares to take a stance at odds with the rest of society.

As background, she reviews the history of U.S. Protestantism, noting that many of the denominations began as "sect-type" groups but came to identify closely with the cause of the people of the United States as a whole. Thus the United States has been called "a nation with the soul of a church." The U.S. constitutional experiment is the model for church-state separation, yet, as Thistlethwaite observes, "the mighty of the society are prominentmembers of its churches, as the kings, dukes and earls of an earlier period."²²

But there have been fundamental shifts in the last twenty years of U.S. Protestant experience. Beginning with their opposition to the war in Southeast Asia, the mainline churches set themselves over against the middle American status quo. As the nation has moved to the right, away from a welfare state toward a national security state, the major denominations, at least in their pronouncements, have moved to the left. They have issued strong peace and justice statements, sharply criticized the military buildup, condemned U.S. policy in Central America, and called for a reversal of many domestic policies and in so doing, have lost significant numbers of members.

All of this, says Thistlethwaite, represents a new church/state situation. She claims that the UCC document in particular represents a first-ever effort of a mainline Protestant denomination to establish an identity distinct from "Culture Protestantism." In other words, there is the beginning of a shift back toward radical sectarianism.

I find this analysis extremely interesting, but I am compelled to ask if it can really be said that the progressive mainline churches are actually now "outside the [American cultural] status quo"?²³ Yes, there have been a lot of bold official declarations, but I keep wondering if those views have any support beyond denominational headquarters and seminary communities? Of course, I must hasten to acknowledge that our "sectarian" denomination may not be doing much better.

So there is need for some caution, some second thoughts, even as we rightly celebrate the new calls for peace from the mainline churches. As has been pointed out, even though there is a lot of talk about a "just peace," and appreciative words about the peace churches, and much use of "shalom" language, none of these documents opt for absolute pacifism. There is little evidence of commitment to costly discipleship, to the way of the cross and suffering that the sectarian pacifist groups have modeled at times of testing. Others have recognized the problem. Early in this paper I quoted from the prophetic challenge that Douglas John Hall delivered to the BPFNA revival-conference in the summer of 1987. He has so clearly and eloquently analyzed the problems of church and world, of two kinds of "church," of pacifism and just war, that I must quote at some length:

The concept of the "just war" has not been incidental to the theology of Christendom, as is sometimes thought; it is an integral aspect of the whole posture of Christendom vis-a-vis worldly power. The just war follows from Christian triumphalism as naturally as heat results from fire! When the triumph of the Christ is tied to the triumph of this or that imperium, then the triumph of the Christ is also tied to the logic of war -- and of the economic sacrifice, the drain of human inventiveness, the creation of enemy-images, propaganda and exaggerated versions of the achievements and glory of one's own people, and all else that inheres in that logic... Thus we have the spectacle of a religion which insists upon the universal and non-partisan love of God aligning itself with nation against nation, race against race, class against class, sex against sex, and so betraying at the level of its praxis its claim to all-embracing human liberation and the breaking-down of dividing walls of hostility.

The historic peace churches (Mennonites, Quakers and Brethren) have been so deeply chagrined by this long-standing irony that they could not function within the mainstream of Christianity. The nuclear crisis has created among important segments in all churches a sentiment open to the suggestion that peacemaking belongs to the Christian confession. But this sentiment is too seldom accompanied by the willingness to follow the course that the peace churches have had to follow, i.e. to adopt a whole new posture in relation to power...

Unlike Christians in both of the other two "worlds," first world Christians are still exceptionally willing to trust the powers-that-be. Only a minority is consistently able to view our global situation from the perspective of the victims of collective power. An even smaller percentage of us, I suspect, is ready to apply to the life of the Christian community itself the search for a radical alternative to the quest for power. As long as this is the case, the majority of First World Christians will be less than serious in their efforts for peace.²⁴

Hall has seized upon the fundamental fact that most of us as "First World" Christians are very much caught up in the world system, in our respective nation-states and their task of protecting property and power and empire. In short, the church must choose once again between the way of power and the way of the cross.

This is not just a hard question to be addressed to evangelicals or the Protestant mainliners or the World Council of Churches. If we are to be honest with ourselves as Mennonites, we must ask if our sectarian tradition still gives us leverage to stand against the pressures of our times. When push comes to shove, when it becomes a choice between national identity or faith identity, when it becomes a question of courage to stand unarmed in the face of the violent enemy -- which way will we go?